Skip to content
2000
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to verify whether the Liver-to-portal Ratio (LPR) can assess the adequacy of the Hepatobiliary Phase (HBP) for patients with different liver functions.

Methods

A total of 125 patients were prospectively enrolled in the study and graded into the non-cirrhosis group (45), Child-Pugh A group (40), and Child-Pugh B/C group (40). The LPR on HBP was calculated after eight HBPs were obtained within 5-40 minutes. The adequate HBP was determined according to the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus statement. The differences in LPR and lesions’ conspicuity between 10-min HBP and adequate HBP were analyzed by paired -test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively. The chi-square test was used to test the difference in proportion with LPR larger than 1.462 between 10-min HBP and adequate HBP.

Results

The differences in LPR and lesions’ conspicuity between 10-min HBP and adequate HBP were significant in Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B/C groups ( < 0.05), except for the non-cirrhosis group ( > 0.05). The differences in proportion with LPR larger than 1.462 between 10-min HBP and adequate HBP were not statistically significant in all groups (all > 0.05).

Conclusion

The adequate HBP obtained according to the 2016 ESGAR consensus statement could provide larger LPR and better lesions’ conspicuity than 10-min HBP, especially for cirrhotic patients; however, the efficacy of using an LPR cutoff of 1.462 as the standard of the adequate HBP may be compromised in patients with cirrhosis.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056318603240910115315
2024-01-01
2025-04-06
The full text of this item is not currently available.

References

  1. HammB. StaksT. MühlerA. BollowM. TaupitzM. FrenzelT. WolfK.J. WeinmannH.J. LangeL. Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: Safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging.Radiology1995195378579210.1148/radiology.195.3.77540117754011
    [Google Scholar]
  2. VoglT.J. KümmelS. HammerstinglR. SchellenbeckM. SchumacherG. BalzerT. SchwarzW. MüllerP.K. BechsteinW.O. MackM.G. SöllnerO. FelixR. Liver tumors: Comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA.Radiology19962001596710.1148/radiology.200.1.86579468657946
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AkimotoS. MoriH. FujiiT. FuruyaK. Optimal scan timing for Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced liver dynamic MR imaging.Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi200965562663010.6009/jjrt.65.626
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DermotM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: Consensus statement from the 1st international primovist user meeting.Eur Radiol Suppl.200818Suppl 484986410.1007/s10406‑008‑0010‑1.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. KitaoA. MatsuiO. YonedaN. KozakaK. ShinmuraR. KodaW. KobayashiS. GabataT. ZenY. YamashitaT. KanekoS. NakanumaY. The uptake transporter OATP8 expression decreases during multistep hepatocarcinogenesis: Correlation with gadoxetic acid enhanced MR imaging.Eur. Radiol.201121102056206610.1007/s00330‑011‑2165‑821626360
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ZhouX. LongL. MoZ. LiY. OATP1B3 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma correlates with intralesional Gd-EOB-DTPA uptake and signal intensity on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI.Cancer Manag. Res.2021131169117710.2147/CMAR.S29219733603462
    [Google Scholar]
  7. SofueK. TsurusakiM. TokueH. AraiY. SugimuraK. Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3.0 T MR imaging: Quantitative and qualitative comparison of hepatocyte-phase images obtained 10 min and 20 min after injection for the detection of liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma.Eur. Radiol.201121112336234310.1007/s00330‑011‑2197‑021748389
    [Google Scholar]
  8. NakamuraS. AwaiK. UtsunomiyaD. NamimotoT. NakauraT. MoritaK. YamashitaY. Chronological evaluation of liver enhancement in patients with chronic liver disease at Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3-T MR imaging: Does liver function correlate with enhancement?Jpn. J. Radiol.2012301253310.1007/s11604‑011‑0003‑122160649
    [Google Scholar]
  9. van KesselC.S. VeldhuisW.B. van den BoschM.A.A.J. van LeeuwenM.S. MR liver imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA: A delay time of 10 minutes is sufficient for lesion characterisation.Eur. Radiol.201222102153216010.1007/s00330‑012‑2486‑222645040
    [Google Scholar]
  10. EstersonY.B. FlusbergM. OhS. MazzariolF. RozenblitA.M. ChernyakV. Improved parenchymal liver enhancement with extended delay on Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI in patients with parenchymal liver disease: Associated clinical and imaging factors.Clin. Radiol.201570772372910.1016/j.crad.2015.03.00525921617
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LiangM. ZhaoJ. XieB. LiC. YinX. ChengL. WangJ. ZhangL. MR liver imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA: The need for different delay times of the hepatobiliary phase in patients with different liver function.Eur. J. Radiol.201685354655210.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.01526860666
    [Google Scholar]
  12. WuJ.W. YuY.C. QuX.L. ZhangY. GaoH. Optimization of hepatobiliary phase delay time of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for identification of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis of different degrees of severity.World J. Gastroenterol.201824341542310.3748/wjg.v24.i3.41529391764
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MotosugiU. IchikawaT. TominagaL. SouH. SanoK. IchikawaS. ArakiT. Delay before the hepatocyte phase of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging: Is it possible to shorten the examination time?Eur. Radiol.200919112623262910.1007/s00330‑009‑1467‑619471935
    [Google Scholar]
  14. BashirM.R. BreaultS.R. BraunR. DoR.K. NelsonR.C. ReederS.B. Optimal timing and diagnostic adequacy of hepatocyte phase imaging with gadoxetate-enhanced liver MRI.Acad. Radiol.201421672673210.1016/j.acra.2014.02.00524717550
    [Google Scholar]
  15. TakatsuY. KobayashiS. MiyatiT. ShiozakiT. A novel method for evaluating enhancement using gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid in the hepatobiliary phase of magnetic resonance imaging.Clin. Imaging20164061112111710.1016/j.clinimag.2016.07.00127450444
    [Google Scholar]
  16. MoriY. MotosugiU. ShimizuT. IchikawaS. KromreyM.L. OnishiH. Predicting patients with insufficient liver enhancement in the hepatobiliary phase before the injection of gadoxetic acid: A practical approach using the Bayesian method.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging2020511626910.1002/jmri.2676031016840
    [Google Scholar]
  17. TakatsuY. NakamuraM. KobayashiS. MiyatiT. Prediction of sufficient liver enhancement on the gadoxetate disodium-enhanced hepatobiliary phase imaging using transitional phase images and Albumin–bilirubin grade.Magn. Reson. Med. Sci.202120215215910.2463/mrms.mp.2020‑005032461506
    [Google Scholar]
  18. TakatsuY. NakamuraM. ShiozakiT. NarukamiS. YoshimaruD. MiyatiT. KobayashiS. Assessment of the cut-off value of quantitative liver–portal vein contrast ratio in the hepatobiliary phase of liver MRI.Clin. Radiol.2021767551.e17551.e2410.1016/j.crad.2021.03.01533902888
    [Google Scholar]
  19. NeriE. BaliM.A. Ba-SsalamahA. BoraschiP. BrancatelliG. AlvesF.C. GrazioliL. HelmbergerT. LeeJ.M. ManfrediR. Martì-BonmatìL. MatosC. MerkleE.M. Op De BeeckB. SchimaW. SkehanS. VilgrainV. ZechC. BartolozziC. ESGAR consensus statement on liver MR imaging and clinical use of liver-specific contrast agents.Eur. Radiol.201626492193110.1007/s00330‑015‑3900‑326194455
    [Google Scholar]
  20. YeX. LiuX. SongD. ZhangX. ZhuB. WeiL. PeiX. WuJ. LouT. ZhaoW. Estimating glomerular filtration rate by serum creatinine or/and cystatin C equations: An analysis of multi‐centre Chinese subjects.Nephrology (Carlton)201621537237810.1111/nep.1263626427030
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KatoN. YokawaT. TamuraA. HeshikiA. EbertW. WeinmannH.J. Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid interaction with clinical drugs in rats.Invest. Radiol.2002371268068410.1097/00004424‑200212000‑0000712447001
    [Google Scholar]
  22. VavrickaS.R. Van MontfoortJ. HaH.R. MeierP.J. FattingerK. Interactions of rifamycin SV and rifampicin with organic anion uptake systems of human liver.Hepatology200236116417210.1053/jhep.2002.3413312085361
    [Google Scholar]
  23. CruiteI. SchroederM. MerkleE.M. SirlinC.B. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: Part 2, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the cirrhotic liver.AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.20101951294110.2214/AJR.10.453820566795
    [Google Scholar]
  24. RingeK.I. HusarikD.B. SirlinC.B. MerkleE.M. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: Part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver.AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.20101951132810.2214/AJR.10.439220566794
    [Google Scholar]
  25. EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of benign liver tumours.J. Hepatol.201665238639810.1016/j.jhep.2016.04.00127085809
    [Google Scholar]
  26. ZechC.J. Ba-SsalamahA. BergT. ChandaranaH. ChauG.Y. GrazioliL. KimM.J. LeeJ.M. MerkleE.M. MurakamiT. RickeJ. B SirlinC. SongB. TaouliB. YoshimitsuK. KohD.M. Consensus report from the 8th International Forum for liver magnetic resonance imaging.Eur. Radiol.202030137038210.1007/s00330‑019‑06369‑431385048
    [Google Scholar]
  27. KohD.M. Ba-SsalamahA. BrancatelliG. FananapazirG. FielM.I. GoshimaS. JuS.H. KartalisN. KudoM. LeeJ.M. MurakamiT. SeidenstickerM. SirlinC.B. TanC.H. WangJ. YoonJ.H. ZengM. ZhouJ. TaouliB. Consensus report from the 9th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging: applications of gadoxetic acid-enhanced imaging.Eur. Radiol.20213185615562810.1007/s00330‑020‑07637‑433523304
    [Google Scholar]
  28. TakatsuY. NakamuraM. KobayashiS. MiyatiT. Visual criterion for evaluating hepatobiliary phase image acquisition of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid-enhanced MRI.Clin. Radiol.2018738760.e1760.e610.1016/j.crad.2018.04.00129724434
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056318603240910115315
Loading
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056318603240910115315
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test